Emmanuel Medernach scripsit:

> IMHO this is restrictive, having payload to be an exact non-negative
> integer (or a sequence of bits) precludes using it to store symbols
> if one (future) implementation wish to do so.

I suppose that's all right.

> Yes, one implementation may decide to always return the same old
> NaN. My point is that (nan) and +nan.0 should have the same behaviour:

What is the benefit of this?

--
John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org  http://ccil.org/~cowan
The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size of his own
skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full humility, and among
other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague.  --Edsger Dijkstra

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports